[zer00eyz]

Did you get cut cause "we need a number" and you're expensive?

Were you the growth guy when they need run the busies blood and guts people?

Did they save 2 people in some other department who matter more with some horse trading?

You can go and be a clock puncher. It's perfectly fine to do so. I know plenty of them, some got laid off recently and cant seem to find jobs. The high achiever's the go the extra mile types who are LIKED (dont be an asshole) are all working already.

Down vote me all you want. I was here for the first (2000) tech flop. The people who went the extra mile and some safe and secure corporates were the ones who made it. Coming out the other side (the ad tech, Web 2.0 boom) there were a lot of talented, ambitious, hard working people around. Any one who wasnt that ended up in another field that made them happy.

[diob]

Might want to think a bit about survivorship bias and see how it might apply.

[zer00eyz]

Thats the point.

Who survives in a down turn?

It's not the folks who are "pragmatic" its not the folks who give up...

You work with two people, Bob who punches the clock and Bill who puts in the time to get the extra work done. You move on to a new job and your boss says "we need someone new on your team, Bob and Bill are here".

You're not picking Bob, Bill gets your vote.

Dont be an asshlole be known as at the hard worker, be helpful (maybe have to do some extra work)... your going to get picked when people are looking. Your old boss is part of your network, and so are your peers (who might end up your boss)...

All those people who are survivors, who put in extra work, have strong networks who know that they are strong hires in a tight market.

[deathanatos]

> You're not picking Bob, Bill gets your vote.

In the layoffs I've been through, it's just as often that it is Bob who gets the vote.

Not for any reason, it's just random. Bill rolled a 1 somewhere, in that layoff. Better luck next time … if there is a next time.

Nobody is picking. Nobody is choosing, or making rational decisions. Just one day, hey, this entire subtree of the org is just simply laid off — individual performance had nothing to do with it. Or other versions of this that are just equally as obviously random.

Yes, the survivors might have put in the extra work. But what the person above you is saying is that that wasn't why they survived.

[samatman]

It seems you missed a beat here.

The comment you're replying to isn't talking about the layoff round. It's talking about what happens next, when someone from the team gets hired elsewhere and the boss says "we need more people". Who gets brought in?

This is a very common scenario in our line of work.

[deathanatos]

Oh, a bit, the parent comment is a bit malformed at that point (why is the new boss talking about my old coworkers? how?), and yeah, I think your interpretation is probably correct.

… that's not really a situation that occurs, for one reason or another. Good people tend to be able to line up "next job" somewhat quickly and even if not, "my job" being a match isn't going to happen on a timescale after a layoff. I.e., we're laid off, time passes, I recover with a job, more time must pass before I'm going to be in the "we need more [good] people" and by that point there's basically no way they've not found work. Even then, getting a recruiting team to articulate a pitch in this industry is rending blood from a stone.

[rawgabbit]

Been there. Done that. Doing the work of five people because I was the survivor and the others got a severance package was no fun. I could only pull it off for six months before being burned out.

[diob]

That's uh, not survivorship bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias#/media/File:...

"It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence"

[creesch]

It's all well and good to include a disclaimer about downvotes. But, it is somewhat irrelevant, as the reason you are most likely to be downvoted is not because you are touching on a sensitive subject. They are downvoting you because your argument makes it very clear you actually haven't read the article.

[sevagh]

Manager propaganda to make us go the extra mile, don't listen.